Open AccessEvaluating possible cap and trade legislation on cellulosic feedstock availability
Author(s) -
HELLWINCKEL CHAD M.,
WEST TRISTRAM O.,
DE LA TORRE UGARTE DANIEL G.,
PERLACK ROBERT D.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
gcb bioenergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.378
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1757-1707
pISSN - 1757-1693
DOI - 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01052.x
Subject(s) - cellulosic ethanol , renewable energy , natural resource economics , raw material , bioenergy , legislation , agriculture , baseline (sea) , environmental science , renewable fuels , business , biofuel , corn ethanol , crop residue , agricultural economics , economics , ethanol fuel , waste management , engineering , chemistry , ecology , cellulose , oceanography , electrical engineering , organic chemistry , chemical engineering , political science , law , biology , geology
An integrated, socioeconomic–biogeophysical model is used to analyze the interactions of cap‐and‐trade legislation and the Renewable Fuels Standard. Five alternative policy scenarios were considered with the purpose of identifying policies that act in a synergistic manner to reduce carbon emissions, increase economic returns to agriculture, and adequately meet ethanol mandates. We conclude that climate and energy policies can best be implemented together by offering carbon offset payments to conservation tillage, herbaceous grasses for biomass, and by constraining crop residue removal for ethanol feedstocks to carbon neutral level. When comparing this scenario to the Baseline scenario, the agricultural sector realizes an economic benefit of US$156 billion by 2030 and emissions are reduced by 135 Tg C‐equivalent (Eq) yr −1 . Results also indicate that geographic location of cellulosic feedstocks could shift significantly depending on the final policies implemented in cap and trade legislation. Placement of cellulosic ethanol facilities should consider these possible shifts when determining site location.